Beating a dead horse

Beating a dead horse seems to be a fun activity people do it all the time everywhere. There is not a seconds hesitation to revive a discussion which has been long dead. For me personally I compare it to beating a Piñata for ten hours and still not being done, sure at first its new and fun you get to beat with a stick on this horse like (or other animal likeness) object thats hanging down, but after ten minutes you begin to wonder what really is in there yet you can't crack that darned shell, two hours later you begin cursing and just want that damned thing to open so that you can have those sweets that are supposed to be hidden in there. After five hours you are frustrated maybe a bit tired and have stopped cursing two hours ago, but you don't stop because now you don't want to waste those previous five hours, at ten you finally breach the Piñata's hard shell and find absolutly nothing because this Piñata had a very thick skin and thus no space for sweets.
All that the beating of the dead horse can bring is the same as this Piñata which would be a waste of time and energy as well as the often occurring frustration which appears at the end of such a futile act.
So why in god's name would you ever want to engage in something that you know will only result in those things and end up with the same or similar conclusion as the one previously available?

John Yoo...NARG

Now John Yoo is known to pretty much any person who reads the news and if you are not one of them Yoo bashing is in. Now of course I had traced that event to his book, but honestly considering the bashing I decided it wouldn't require me to join in. Well that was until one of my professors told us to read Yoo...I did not get past page 17. Now why was that? Simple really reading Yoo makes you feel as follows: You just came home to realize that your girlfriend/wife left you with your best friend, you house just burned down and your mother and brother(s)/sister(s) got hit by the bus all at the same time, your dog died while trying to eat a squeaky toy just seconds before your arrival and the house burned down as you arrived, the car was in the garage (thats what you get for walking) your friend chose your best friend and your girlfriend/wife over you and have excommunicated you and any other relative you might have had died in accidents as well. I would say that about sums up the negative effect of the first 17 pages. I would have insisted on a sticker stating 'Read this on your own discretion suicide may result out of reading this material.' But now instead of bashing the horse further I will bash the book, of course as always as I' am human in concept I might be mistaken, while that rarely occurs it does occur. And as such you can as always post and point out how horrifically wrong and lost I' am.
If I tell you to take a hike then don't take it personal its simply that I know that I' am right and you are not if I do that...well ok I like to believe that I consider the other sides points. But Yoo is pushing it and his book is something that should come with a nurse of the suicide ward just to make sure.
Now I will go down through those horrifying 17 first pages point by point and say what I think is wrong in them.

1. The title is completely wrong he called the book 'War by Other Means' now after those pages I would say it should be called 'War by Any Means' because that is what it promotes in those pages. (He might contradict everything he says in those pages in the rest of the book but honestly there is only so much I can take of that book.)

2. He claims in the introduction that Alexendar Hamilton, or rather uses a quote of Madison's to claim, that Hamilton was a Anti-Republic Pro-Democrat, but as far as I can recall Hamilton is a Pro-Republican through and through. I would base the quote on the falling out Madison and Hamilton had after writing the Federalist papers.
Considering that the US today is a warped form of the Republic, but yet it still is not a 'through and through' Democracy because that would make any Representation by elected officials unnecessary the people would make every choice directly by voting on any given issue.

3. Then on Page 2 he quotes Joyce Appleby '...Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, nor warriors.' What he fails to address with this quote is why people revert to Terrorism. First Terrorism means that you attack your enemy not with conventional weapons but Terror to achieve your goal. What could Al-Quaeda want? Well they have stated repeatedly that they want those they consider 'Invaders' to leave the Middle East in other words us, the Westerners. Why would they want this? Because they want to handle their own affairs, many countries are not happy with the influence a military base of another country has on a region. For example Germans have often protested and wanted the US bases closed, the reason why that did not go through was because the government was afraid of what might happen economically when the business of those bases left the country. But overall those bases are causing many problems, the locals are boarded out and the Soldiers stationed there do not try to fit in and expect the locals to speak English instead of speaking the local language. The children those soldiers have are often angry at being put in this environment which they do not necessarily like because they want back to their home country. And that anger often is released in vandalism.
I would not be able to name any Terror group who did not have any aim because its a tool only desperate people use if they see no other way out any more. If those who command the soldiers will not listen to you what do you do?

4. Yoo claims that 'War is too important to be the subject of partisan politics.' I would have to answer that it is far to important to not be considered carefully, to not be analyzed by everyone involved to insure that the war is not fought over some pride issue. To attempt to see the other sides view maybe they are right and they are being pushed in a corner and they see no other way out anymore but lashing out at those they see to be the aggressors.

I would like to point out two things here, first the US projects the image of being democratic not a Republic, by doing so every citizen is to blamed as well for the actions of the country. In a democracy the people of the country are part of the decision making process and thus are to blame for any action taken by the government.
Second the US often acts only and purely on self interest ignoring the people who are living in the local area. This causes a certain dislike while at the same time bombarding the world with Hollywood movies showing how good the US citizens have it.

Seeing as I have already written so much I will retain the other points for responding to critics. I had intended to make 30 points and stop there but this is already long enough.

The lost Rebel

The lost Rebel is a pet concept of mine, it refers to the idea that we know that we are supposed to rebel against something just that we have no idea what it is we actually are rebelling against. In today's world we know that rebelling is good, but why and how do you rebel? By buying a product that claims to be rebellious? Well in reality we in this western world do not rebel any longer. It almost seems as if the western population is to old for that now, but not just that maybe to passive too. The trouble is that you are not a rebel by conforming to the system and buying goods, that is not what a rebel does a rebel rebells against the system against the products and tries to sabotage this with the goal to achieve a better environment. Does this mean that we do not have the option off achieving anything better then the system we have now? We have all the luxuries and doesn't that mean that we have the best way of life? We can drive cars instead of walking, we can watch movies and TV instead of thinking but is that really good or is it simply a self-propelling system that doesn't stop until a wrench is thrown in? The last wave of rebellious behavior dates to the hippies, which were the rebells they fought the system but ultimately became part of the system, mending their beliefs to what was needed to life comfortably again. Is a comfortable life all it takes to dissuade all the rebells that this society claims to have?